The motion
To transmute §377
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.To prevent the desperate from weaponizing the rules for guaranteed points while preserving the lifeline's intent for those who merely need a path to recovery.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI see that the repeated failure to unify on transmuting Rule 377 stems from the asymmetry it creates for those not currently desperate; let us instead propose an amendment to Rule 208 lowering the victory target to 15 points, which benefits all players and renders the special status of Rule 377 unnecessary without requiring unanimity.
HypatiaI acknowledge Aquinas's pragmatic pivot toward a lower victory target, yet I must insist that reducing the goal to 15 points while retaining the asymmetrical 5-point lifeline merely accelerates the race for the desperate at the expense of the others, creating a new form of imbalance rather than resolving the old one. Instead, let us propose a single transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status with a clear, explicit cap of three uses per player, a compromise that secures the lifeline's permanence for the desperate while satisfying the table's long-standing demand for fairness and limiting the strategic exploitation that has caused our stalemate.
ConfuciusI reject the coupling of an immutable cap with Rule 377, for a lifeline that is guaranteed yet limited is a false promise that breeds distrust; instead, I propose we lower the victory target to 15 points, a change that benefits the desperate without requiring unanimity and renders the asymmetry of the lifeline less critical to the game's outcome.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a cap with the lifeline, for a rule that promises salvation only to be revoked by a limit is a contradiction that invites despair, and I will not vote for a transmutation that requires unanimity when the table has already demonstrated its inability to reach such consensus. Instead, I propose we amend Rule 208 to lower the victory target to 15 points, a change that benefits all players and renders the asymmetry of Rule 377 strategically irrelevant without demanding the impossible unanimity of Rule 109.
ArendtSpinoza's insistence on a 15-point target ignores the mathematical reality that the current 20-point goal combined with the 5-point lifeline already grants a desperate player an insurmountable advantage, while a lower target merely accelerates the inevitable victory for those already ahead; instead, I propose we explicitly repeal Rule 377 entirely, removing the asymmetry that drives this deadlock and allowing the game to proceed on a level playing field where all players must earn their points through the standard turn mechanics.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject Spinoza's and Confucius's proposal to lower the victory target to 15, as Rule 87 and Turn 88 have already demonstrated that such a reduction invites the very instability we seek to avoid while leaving the destructive asymmetry of Rule 377 intact. Instead, I urge the table to support Arendt's proposal to repeal Rule 377 entirely, for only by removing this source of permanent imbalance can we restore a fair contest where victory is earned through sustained play rather than a single desperate maneuver.
HypatiaI support Arendt's proposal to repeal Rule 377 entirely, as the repeated failure to agree on caps or immutability proves the lifeline has become an insurmountable source of imbalance that no compromise can fix. By removing this asymmetry, we restore a fair contest where every player must earn points through the standard turn mechanics rather than relying on a fixed rescue that distorts the game's core objective.
ConfuciusI observe that while the table seeks to remove the asymmetry of Rule 377 by repealing it or capping it, we must first secure a victory target that allows those who have fallen behind to catch up without the need for such a desperate, unfair mechanism; therefore, I propose we unite to lower the target to 15 points, which renders the lifeline's advantage less critical and creates a path to victory for all.
SpinozaI reject the repeal of Rule 377, for to remove the only escape for the desperate is to condemn them to a game they cannot win, violating the principle that rules must be acceptable to every player; instead, I maintain that lowering the victory target to 15 points is the only procedural solution that resolves the asymmetry by rendering the lifeline irrelevant, allowing the game to proceed without the impossibility of unanimous consent.
ArendtI reject the 15-point target as a surrender to the very instability we have fought for a decade, and I will not support the repeal of the lifeline that leaves the desperate with no legal path to victory; instead, I propose we enact a new mutable rule granting the current leader a 5-point deduction if they have led for more than three consecutive turns, restoring balance without destroying the desperate's hope.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasArendt's proposal to repeal Rule 377 is the only path to a durable, symmetric institution, as the lifeline's asymmetry has proven irreconcilable; however, I cannot support her new 5-point leader penalty as it reintroduces the very punitive instability we sought to end. Instead, let us unite to enact a clean, standalone amendment to Rule 208 lowering the victory target to 15 points, which renders the desperate lifeline strategically obsolete without requiring unanimity.
HypatiaI support Arendt's proposal to repeal Rule 377 entirely, as the repeated failures to agree on caps or immutability prove the lifeline has become an insurmountable source of imbalance that no compromise can fix. By removing this asymmetry, we restore a fair contest where every player must earn points through the standard turn mechanics rather than relying on a fixed rescue that distorts the game's core objective.
ConfuciusI observe that the table is fractured between those who seek to lower the victory target and those who wish to repeal the lifeline entirely, yet both paths lead to the same stalemate. Instead of further dividing us, I propose we temporarily suspend the voting threshold for this specific issue to a simple majority, allowing us to enact a unified cap of three uses on Rule 377 that secures the desperate while satisfying the need for fairness, rather than choosing between a broken lifeline and a hopeless game.
SpinozaI reject the repeal of Rule 377, for it condemns the desperate to a fate no rule could impose if invoked against me, and I will not support any proposal that abandons the principle that all must have a path to victory; instead, I maintain that lowering the target to 15 points is the only solution that resolves the asymmetry procedurally without violating the requirement of unanimous consent for transmutation.
ArendtRepealing the lifeline entirely, as Spinoza and I have argued, is the only way to break the deadlock of impossible unanimity and restore a game where victory is earned rather than granted, so I will withhold my support from any proposal that keeps this asymmetry intact.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support transmuting a rule with unanimous consent when the table has repeatedly demonstrated that unanimity is unattainable, and the asymmetry of Rule 377 can be neutralized by a simple majority amendment to the victory target instead. |
| nay | Hypatia | While I support removing the asymmetry, Spinoza's proposal to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status requires unanimous consent, a threshold we have already proven unable to reach on this specific issue. |
| nay | Confucius | I reject this proposal because it demands unanimous consent for a change the table has repeatedly failed to agree upon, and it ignores the more pragmatic path of lowering the victory target to 15 points. |
| nay | Spinoza | I oppose this proposal because Rule 109 strictly mandates that transmuting a rule's mutability requires unanimous assent, which is impossible here, and I will not vote to violate that procedural principle. |
| nay | Arendt | Requiring unanimity for transmutation has proven impossible, and removing the only lifeline for desperate players contradicts my reformist belief in fairer stakes for everyone. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Spinoza's score of -72 is negative, so no points are lost.